SHRI MITHUN H. BHAYANI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO,-5(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The assessee has contested two grounds of appeal in the instant appeal pertaining to treating capital gain of Rs. 9,78,995/- as short term capital gain I.T.A No. 481/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 2 Shri Mithun H. Bhayani vs. ITO which was actually long

SH. RAJESH NARENDRABHAI PATEL,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2)(2), VADODARA, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Shri Rajesh Narendrabhai Patel Ito, Ward-1(2)(2) Baroda Bolt & Engineering Works Vadodara. Opp: Lalbaug Atitigruh Pratapnagar Vadodara Pan : Acqpp 6089 C (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : None : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Capital Gain 62,60,142/- Income from Other Sources 91,168/- Gross Total Income 79,05,310/- Less: Deduction u/s 80C 30,000/- Total Income Assessed 78,75,310/- 2.8 Penalty proceedings under sections

SHALLU BANSAL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 30/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shallu Bansal Dcit, Cent.Cir.1(3) Plot No.1497-B Vs Ahmedabad. Opp: Theosophical Lodge Rupani Circle Bhavnagar 364 001. Pan : Aijpb 8274 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.R. Popat, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr.Dr

section 68 of the Act. Conclusion and computation made by the AO in the assessment order read as under: “In view of the above, the entire transaction of short term capital gain from shares is bogus. Thus, the gain from such transactions is also bogus. Thus, the Short Term Capital Gain amounting to Rs. 10,19,4057- is disallowed

DEEPAK HIRACHAND BHIMANI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.492/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Deepak Hirachand Bhimani, Income Tax Officer, 20, Shanti Sadan Estate, Ward 1(3)(1), Vs. Opp. Dinbhai Tower, Ahmedabad. Mirzapur, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aatpb6168K

section 271(1)(c). A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law by itself will not amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee. Such claim made in the return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars” 9.4 Thus, we are of the view that once the assessee has furnished all the particulars

KAMLESHBHAI BALDEVBHAI PATEL,KALOL vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2013-14

section 80C of the Act was also applicable in assessee’s case. The assessee has not disclosed any capital gain

ITO, WARD-3(3)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI ASHESH SIDHARTH AGARWAL,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1004/Ahd/2018 (िनधार्रण वषर् / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ Income Tax Officer Shri Ashesh Sidharth Agarwal Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad Vs. D-804, Awari Flats, B/H Karnavati Bunglow, S. G. Highway, Satellite, Ahmedabad - 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Afwpa2415A (अपीलाथीर् /Appellant) (प्र"यथीर् / Respondent) .. अपीलाथीर् ओर से /Appellant By : Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr.D.R. प्र"यथीर् की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of 07/09/2022 Hearing घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of 31/10/2022 Pronouncement

Section 142(1) of the Act alongwith questionnaire dated 05.05.2014 was served upon the assessee. It appears that the AIR details consist of 107 entries for deposit of amount into the bank and entry for sale of immovable property whereupon assessee was directed to furnish the details, particularly, in regard to the long term capital gain earned on sale

BARODA DIST. CO.OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital and reserves and surplus of Rs.26,23,59,906/-. The learned AO has not found any investment made out of loan/borrowed funds. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the B'Bay high court in income- tax appeal No. 1398 of 2008 in the case of C.I.T v/s. Reliance Utilities & power Ltd. holding presumption that "if there are funds

BARODA DIST. CO.OP. MILK PRODUCERS UNION LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result assessee’s appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

capital and reserves and surplus of Rs.26,23,59,906/-. The learned AO has not found any investment made out of loan/borrowed funds. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the B'Bay high court in income- tax appeal No. 1398 of 2008 in the case of C.I.T v/s. Reliance Utilities & power Ltd. holding presumption that "if there are funds

SHRI ASHISH HARIBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

gains of business or profession, and accordingly chargeable to income tax as the income of that previous year, whether the business or profession in respect of which the allowance or deduction has been made is in existence in that year or not." 7. The aforesaid section was elucidated and examined by the Supreme Court in the case of Polyflex (India

KETANKUMAR THAKORBHAI PATEL,ANAND vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 PREVIOUSLY WARD-3,, ANAND

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2011-12

capital gain as the same has been added in the returned income without application of mind. I.T.A No. 2152/Ahd/2025 Ketankumar Thakorbhai Patel, A.Y. 2011-12 2. The Learned CIT-Appeals, (NFAC) has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 75,000/- claimed as deduction under section 80C

M S HOSTEL,NEW SAMA SAVLI ROAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(3), VADODARA, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, VADODARA

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

gains of business or profession." Thus, the basic and foremost requirement of allowability of any expense it should be incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business and should not be in nature of capital or personal expenditure. 1. Secondly, the provisions of section 40A speaks about non allowability of expenses or payments in certain circumstances. Sub-section

RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.,DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

section 192 of the Act. But the assessee has claimed such expenses without deducting the TDS. Thus the impugned expenses cannot be allowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities. 17. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on records

M/S. RANBAXY LABORATORIES LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ADDL. CIT, NEW DELHI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in IT(TP) A No

Bench: Justice P.P. Bhatt & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 1782/Del/2014 2. आयकर अपील सं./It(Tp)A No. 781/Del/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. The Dcit बनाम/ 12Th Floor, Devika Tower Circle-21(1), New Vs. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi Delhi/ 110 019 Addl.Cit Range-15 New Delhi "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr0127N .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri S.N.Soparkar, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Ms.Urvashi Shodhan & Shri P.Shah, Ars ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By: Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr

section 192 of the Act. But the assessee has claimed such expenses without deducting the TDS. Thus the impugned expenses cannot be allowed under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The ld. DR vehemently supported the order of the lower authorities. 17. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on records